Wp(C)/39687/2018 Of M/S. Oriental Shopping Complex v. Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
06 Dec 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/39687/2018 Of M/S. Oriental Shopping Complex v. Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
06 Dec 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp(C)/39687/2018 Of M/S. Oriental Shopping Complex v. Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2018) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
THURSDAY ,THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940WP(C).No. 39687 of 2018
PETITIONER/S:
M/S. ORIENTAL SHOPPING COMPLEXFLAT NO.3B, CHOICE TOWERS, MANORAMA JUNCTION, KOCHI-682 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER HEMA D.LAKHANI.
BY ADV. SMT.PREETHA S.NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a partnership firm, faced the penalty proceedings
under Section 27(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act. It succeeded in appeal, but
the Department took the second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal. It was allowed. Then, the petitioner filed ITA No.157 of 2018.
This Court, initially through Ext.P3 interim order, required the petitioner toprovide the bank guarantee for the penalty amount and eventually set asidethe Tribunal's order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal. On remand,the Tribunal dismissed the Department's second appeal. In other words, itrestored the first Appellate Authority's order. Thus, the proceedings haveattained finality.
2. Despite the proceedings attaining finality, the Department has notso far released the bank guarantee, the petitioner produced in compliancewith Ext.P3 interim order of this Court. In that context, the petitioner hasfiled this writ petition.
3. In response to the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel, the
Standing Counsel has fairly submitted that the Department will release thebank guarantee forthwith.
Recording the Standing Counsel's submission, I dispose of the writpetition.
Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
JUDGE
WPC No.39687 of 2018 3
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ORDER DATED 05.11.2008 RAISING A DEMAND OF RS.7,82,636/- INCLUDING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 220(2) AND REFUND.
EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES AND STAY PETITION.
EXHIBIT P3A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN I.A.NO.2857/2008 IN I.T.A.NO.156/2008 DATED 18.12.2008.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN I.T.A.NO.156 OF2008 DATED 22.11.2016.
EXHIBIT P5
A TRUE COPY OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 03.07.2017.
EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04.09.2017.EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08.08.2018.Css/
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.